Agenda item

Erection of new 3-bedroom bungalow with dormers and rooflights serving accommodation in the roof, on land to the front of existing dwelling

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

Erection of new 3-bedroom bungalow with dormers and rooflights serving accommodation in the roof, on land to the front of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the application and noted that this application was at appeal. The Committee’s decision would form the Council’s Statement of case.

A petitioner in objection of the proposed development addressed the Committee. The petition had been signed by 29 residents and concerns were raised regarding overlooking, loss of amenity and the detrimental impact to the character to the area. The petitioner supported the officer’s recommendation. The proposal was a four-bed house with a previous parking turnaround area which had now been replaced with two car park spaces.  However, the inclusion of the high fence restricted the drivers view which caused unintended consequences for neighbouring properties. Questions were also raised about the two car parking spaces, one being EV and no option to reverse which could cause safety concerns.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee and referred to handouts that were circulated to Members and officers prior to the meeting. Handouts were also made available at the meeting. It was noted that this application had been put forward as a non-determination appeal to the Planning Inspector to reach a decision. It was submitted that Harefield Road provided a rich mix of different properties, and it was impossible to find a typical pattern as other properties were also out of character of the area. The frontage of 172 was a shared driveway making it back land property and the new dwelling would reinforce the existing street line. It was submitted that the Council had a history of resisting development on Harefield Road and there were multiple examples of properties that caused overlooking and loss of privacy. Views from ground floor openings were naturally obscured by site boundaries while those from the first floor could be easily mitigated. It was also submitted that amendments to the application could be made however there had been no opportunity to address any points where standards in building regulations had not been met. The scheme had been recommended for refusal without thorough assessment. 

Councillor Tony Burles, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge addressed the Committee and was in support of residents and the officer’s recommendation. It was submitted that this would be an inappropriate development and would not enhance the area. Disappointment was expressed regarding the lack of refusal reasons on highways grounds as this would strengthen the refusal recommendation.

The Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration provided further context on the site and highlighted the three refusal reasons provided in the report.

Officers advised the Committee of an additional refusal reason as the in and out access of the driveway was counter to the Council’s vehicle crossover policy.

The Legal Advisor advised the Committee that a decision needed to be made on the plans put before the Committee, to assist the Inspectorate in their decision making.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of the additional refusal reason relating to highways arrangements and amending refusal reason 3 to remove the reference to diagram 27, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that had the application not been subject to a non-determination appeal the Committee would have refused the application as per the officer recommendation, but subject to an additional refusal reason relating to highways arrangements and amending refusal reason 3 to remove the reference to diagram 27.